Decisions on Tires...

Just finished the lift. Bilstein 6112/5160 with deaver halfpack in the rear. Currently sitting 2.5 front and 2 rear higher than stock, but based on what I have seen here, all four corners will settle down to about 2 and 1.5 (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

Parking spot is not leveled so rear looks a bit lower in the photo.

For those wondering I should've gotten a new leafpack to cover the weight in the rear, that is something I'm considering ATM (a few offroad shops strongly recommended that I try deaver halfpack first since the truck isn't my daily so I took their recommendation).

I've run a few hundred miles of mild/moderate trails/overlanding in the stock tires before the lift. I did KOFA, EMHT Segments 1 and 2 and some short trails.

Just noticed quite a bit of chunks in different sizes are missing from the tire tread. I have a feeling that these tires will give in sooner than later so they need to go, so here are some questions for you guys out there. FYI - OEM wheels are staying (I'm more of a function over form person). Going with slightly larger tires (265/75R16) although 33s are enticing.

- The OEM tires are not the best a/t tires, but they're designed as a/t so I was somewhat surprised that chunks were missing from the tread. Do folks here experience the same with their "upgraded" C load tires? i don't want the "upgraded" tires to damage them again.

- Truck adds about 500 lbs with gears for the trails in the bed. With me in it - 700+ lbs on the trail. Am I better suited for E load tires with this much weight? Does weight matter when you decided C vs. E (for my use application)?

- what is noticeable on the road going from C load to E load that are slightly larger than stock? MPG? Sluggish? Gear hunting more noticeable?

- Are E load tires "harder" than C load tires and if so what brands out there have "hard" E load tires?
- Falkens have the largest 32s (actual measurement). They come in at 31.9 inches vs. 31.6 BFG. What other brands are bigger than the Falkens.

 

I’m in a similar boat, I really wanted skinny 33s but I ran 265/75R16 on my last set and they worked out great. I just ordered Falkens in 265/75R16 a few days ago. I ended getting some Rubitreks in a 116 load, currently I run a Duratrac in a C load and they’ve been fine. Mainly they’re noisy and starting to get choppy, I was able to find the Rubitreks for 665 delivered so I couldn’t pass it up. Going to a skinny 33 would look nice but wouldn’t really gain much in off road performance and I’m trying to keep my fuel range up. There are tons of cool places to explore around me so anything I can do to try and preserve fuel economy is nice, especially when a gas station is like 2 hours away.

 

I run 255s, in C load. Have had them in E load as well, but I wouldn’t recommend a E load on a tacoma(rode super stiff). E load is 10 ply and C load is 6, more ply means more weight and a stiffer tire. C load is plenty for a Tacoma, i run 50MPH through the SoCal desert(Mojave to Ocotillo) at 25PSI and haven’t had a issue(C Load), the E loads bounced like crazy unless aired down below 18PSI.

The E loads were noticeable on daily driving, slower acceleration and had more gear hunting on freeway. Weight difference was about 10LBS per tire, that’s a major difference in rotational mass(especially for our amazing 3.5 minivan engine). Gears/tune help, but I’m glad I returned to C load tires on the Tacoma.

Leafs- go with a full pack, 1/2 pack/AAL will sag in due time(mine lasted 6 months)
I run Deaver stage 1s on my truck, rides like a Cadillac now(new leafs made the truck feel planted in the rear, factory leafs “wrap” under accel/decel bc of the soft leaf pack setup)

 

Good point. Did you have weight in the rear and what shocks when you had with your E load tires?

 

That's right, you don't want to get stranded. I have gas can to make the vehicle heavier. LOL

I'll def look into Rubitreks. Thanks.

 

Sounds like the stock tires did fairly well for your application. I would try and stay with C.

 

I have a SnugTop camper shell, front runner roof racks(truck and camper) plus all armor in steel(bumper, skids, sliders). I run Kings(650lb springs) with adjusters on all 4 corners, and Deaver U402 stage 1s for leafs. Initially i thought the E load tires were needed for desert runs(sharp rocks at low PSI and high speed) but I haven’t had a issue on the C loads(ran 120 miles of Mojave desert in the past 5 days with no issues)

 

Definitely weight matters. Erated are heavy. C and under for our rigs unless you like riding on rocks. Ask me how I know. I ran 2 sets of GEOLANDERS G003 way too much for my needs. I also drive my rig a lot. So if ride quality is importantly to you C , SL would be good IMO. I’m running 265/75/16 Falken At4w smooth like butter. Also went back to this size after running the geos in 255’s. I lost 14 lbs per tire

 

ROFL. Should've known. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

mind asking what tires you are running on?

 

Thanks, man. Seems like all are suggesting C over E. Not intending on riding on rocks all the time, but probably occasionally on desert runs.

 

Im running the Falken wildpeak at4 in 255/85 16

 

I would suggest avoid any SL-load tires if your intention is to go off road a lot (weaker sidewalls, and they also tend to wear faster). Once I sold the factory SL-load AT tires off another rig to a buddy after I put MTs on it, he promptly popped a sidewall on a rock our very first trip out with them.

C-load tires are quite fine. Most of my off road travels (including rocks) have been on C-loads, and have had almost no issues. The Toyo M/Ts on my Tacoma are my first E-loads (no C-load available in a 285/75R17 when I bought them), and being E-load has done nothing for them as far as tread durability (chunking) goes (the only same or worse tires i had were BFG KM(1)s. I have General Grabber X3 C-loads on another rig, and even after 7 years, there has been almost no tread chunking on them).

As for weight... I went straight from the stock All-Seasons on my Sport to the Toyo M/T E-loads, so while it was plainly obvious how much heavier they are than the A/S tires, I can't say how much less the difference would've been had they been C-loads (there are some pretty heavy C-loads out there too, the Grabber X3 among them). Most times a heavier tire will have thicker (stronger) sidewalls regardless of it's load rating, so consider that too if you're simply trying to find the lightest weight tire possible.

 

hmm.. I thought SL = C load... at least for my tire size. Here are two examples = both say "SL". Am I missing anything?

 

SL, C, and E are the load rating. I still recommend C.

 

Oh.. then there are no C load tires for 265/75 R16s.

 

SL is not C. C is a load rating in the LT category. SLs are in the passenger category.

there are practically no C load tires in the sizes you’re looking at. It’s all LT E and SLs.

 

Looks like it. no more deciding then. LOL. Thanks for confirming.

 

SL (Standard load) I believe is what replaced the "P" on P265/75R16, for example. ("P" stood for Passenger service whereas "LT" (still in use) is for Light Truck tires. C-load tires are generally LT tires).

Edit:
Too slow lol

 

Yeah, I forgot about that. 265/75/16 is pretty much E rated across all brands.